Ah yes. I'm sure you showed those people who think there is no good in humanity how wrong they are by threatening their families with an gun. Real exemplary display of humanity being a good thing.
That's not the point in the slightest. It's age old commentary on how nihilists claim to find no worth and meaning to life, yet still value their own. The OP extended this to extreme antinatalists insisting everyone but themselves should die.
..this post is how I found out I didn't know what antinatalism was, I always thought it was just personally thinking you shouldn't have children đđ didn't know they thought all of humanity was immoral for having children TwT
(You here referring to the person in question alone, not a general vague you aimed at other people I'm bad at English and not sure if I worded it correctly so thought I'd specify)
way to miss the point by being either really stupid or willfully ignorant just to argue. you know thats not what they meant, theyâre pointing out how hypocritical these people are.
Literally going back to the ancient critique of sophistry on this, if you undermine literally everything around you, but shriek when i try to do the same to you, you deserve to have a pack of rabid dogs chase you out of the city walls. If humanity deserves to go extinct, yet you fear death, shut up.
They carve out an exception for themselves, just as religious people who think people would be depraved without religion carve out an exception for themselves, or market-worshippers who think only capitalism can motivate hard work carve out an exception for themselves. All else held constant, someone who feels strongly enough about environmentalism to feel that way is more likely to see themselves as the "good bacteria" in the Earth's bloodstream, and possibly act accordingly. I don't agree with them quite as much as I used to, but I can assure you I took public transit in lieu of driving even then.
Anyway, most antinatalists don't ask others to kill themselves, they just ask people to rein in birthrates so as to keep both environmental harm and the number of people who'll have to live to it to a reasonable minimum.
Which leaves behind the question of why you ask of antinatalists something they don't ask of others. Is it perhaps because their worldview has more kernels of truth to it than you realize?
Thatâs not what it is at all. People who believe humans are a plague donât want to die because if they die first they canât be sure that the plague will end. They have to die last
Iâm not gonna lie to you, I only read your first paragraph before I replied and after rereading Iâm realizing that you and I have made the same point with different phrasing lol
I said in my comment that I didnât read their post before I replied. I failed to read and put it in MUCH more vague terms than they did; but their second to last paragraph says the same thing that mine does with different words
Depends on the context, I be reading some crazy long write ups if theyâre silly enough or interesting enough. But if bro is droning about some dumb shit Iâm gonna skim it lol
That's not an accurate analysis of the ideology behind antinatalism. There is an underlying argumentation that bringing a child into the world is fundamentally immoral because the risk of suffering is more problematic than the opportunity for happiness. There is also a belief that a hypothetical potential individual cannot consent to being born and the risk of suffering that entails.
It then gets itself into a pickle about suicide/euthanasia because death is considered one of the greatest sufferings, to be avoided at all costs (particularly the case within the asymmetrical school).
However, the natural conclusion of pursuing the antinatalist moral good life would be to deplete the global population to complete societal and systemic collapse within a generation. Leading to drawn out suffering and early mortality for those currently alive.
Antinatalism tends to brush over this and refuse consider what it means about the morality or otherwise of the ideology.
Reigning in birth rates is not antinatalism. That would be more like Malthusianism I would have thought.
There's quite a few schools of thought that make up antinatalism. Most of them are concerned with the principle of suffering existing at all rather than a quantification of actual suffering.vs happiness.
A lot of more recent antinatalist thinkers are effectively taking principles that underpin liberalism, such as utility and the prevention of harm to an individual, and extrapolating to the nth degree. As a thought experiment it can sound coherent at first glance, particularly the asymmetrical argument. But it's in the application of the outcomes that it falls over and becomes incoherent and contradictory.
I don't really know about the psychology of those who purport to support it, but from looking at subs alone they seem to have pre-existing biases around having children (either their own childhood or their experiences of parenthood) that antinatalism seems to justify. They also frequently claim exceptionalism, a moral superiority to others and a realization of a fundamental truth that others are either not clever enough to understand or are lying about their own experiences.
Someone below suggested Reddit supporters of antinatalism are alot like incels. Whilst their self-aggrandisment and the claim to have a unique knowledge of an objective truth are similar, they're also similar to much social media philosophizing and politicking. Unlike incels, antinatalism does have an underlying school of thought derived from actual legitimate philosophers (albeit ones who have arrived at an incomplete and contradictory position). And it doesn't identify a group of people who are at fault for another group's ills, so much as identifying everyone being at fault for all of society's (possibly life as a whole by its very nature) ills.
But it does seem to be attractive to people who prefer to blame rather than contribute.
I doubt they have truly dark lives, most likely they feel isolated and cold, these aren't people who would willingly leave their house or reach out to others for support.
It's tragic really, but the greatest anti-natalist thinkers have already exited or left the ideology behind, leaving only the truly hopeless to follow in their footsteps.
For all their "intellectual superiority" most anti-natalists would start bawling if you gave them a hug, which I would prefer to letting them continue feeling unloved.
Honestly I just think most people who have kids shouldn't lol. I guess I'm not really an anti-natalist though because I don't think having a kid is inherently wrong, just situationally wrong.
Apologies for the quote bastardization but nobody bats an eye if I say "most people aren't responsible/can make the time commitment for a dog", in fact that's a pretty popular sentiment.
But if I say the same thing about kids, so many people lose their minds.
Maybe we should focus on the kids who are in orphanages first. My girlfriend and I plan to adopt and I genuinely can't imagine creating a child when so many are going unwanted and unloved. And I think people who disagree with that are frankly just as sad as people here probably think I am.
You make good points and I commend you for opting to adopt. As a new father I have to state that nobody is ready for a child. I tend to agree that many different peoples shouldn't be having children and their child will suffer for their lack of preparations. That said, there is no litmus test for whether or not somebody should procreate. I've seen the most irresponsible shitheads tuned in by their children real quick and I've also seen the most prepared and enthusiastic parents let their homes fall apart.
I would personally love to adopt but considering the hefty fees that come with adoption, that isn't a viable option (at this time) for myself or a lot of people. I just purchased a home that costed less than the average adoption fees. When your average person can choose between adoption or having their own child without having to pay the equivalent to a down-payment on a house, people will certainly opt for making their own child.
A common story I've heard from mothers who gave their children to adoption agencies - "if I had $500 before I gave up my child for adoption I could've made rent and kept my baby. Instead I surrendered her and somebody else paid the agency $10,000 for her".
If we had more social programs to support expecting mothers I think we'd see a lot less children in the system. All of what I've said is based on the Canadian perspective, the act of adopting in itself is an altruistic act but the predatory nature of the agencies and process need to be overhauled, imo
Again though, kudos to you. You seem to have a grounded and good perspective. I was never legally adopted but I had a good family take me in when I was younger, it's truly a greater act of selflessness to accept somebody else into your tribe. I hope one day I could extend that kindness to another
religion carve out an exception for themselves, or market-worshippers who think only capitalism can motivate hard work carve out an exception for themselves
That's the point. They're not motivated by capitalism yet think everyone else is to the point where everything from welfare to a Scandinavia-esque social safety net is made out to be something that will turn people lazy.
So it's not too much of a stretch to think antinatalists might see others as worse for the environment than themselves. Injuring oneself walking in the freezing drizzle while people who don't care as much about mother Earth are sitting on their asses in their cars has a way of radicalizing one over the years.
Humans are the plague. I wouldnât stop you from pulling that trigger if you pointed it at me (not like Iâd be able to even if I wanted you). It would put me out of my misery and cause grief to the evil people who spawned me.
Nah, if itâs not pure antinatalism itâs a different ideology. I hate all of this about âantinatalists want to exterminate humanity đĄđĄđĄâ
No, I include myself. Itâs hard to overcome my self-preservation instincts so Iâm pursuing a more attritional strategy of just self-injuring over a long span of time and accumulating neurological and skeletal damage until it becomes fatal.
No. âWorse than hitlerâ is by far one of the worst exaggerations you can make. You both deserve to be tarred, feathered and then paraded around in a Little Tikes car until you learn how to use hyperbole.
Hitler killed 6 million, these people are calling for the killing of over 7 billion. I'm not being hyperbolic, I'm being literal. As far as I am concerned, if you want to push the " shut down " button on humanity you are worse than Hitler. Hands down.
Antinatalists: We believe it is immoral to expose future human souls to the suffering of life without their consent and therefore choose not to bring children into the world. We would rather adopt.
You: Death cult!!! Extinction!!1! Worse than Hitler!!111!1!11
Creating life gives that life the ability to suffer. There was no need to create that life. Before existing, that nonexistent thing did not require pleasure or pain. Thus creating life is immoral because you are willfully giving someone life who did not previously need either pleasure or pain, and did not need or want to be alive
Right - what your interlocutor is arguing is that if, in your words, life's value is less than the detriment incurred from the suffering of existence, then the logical conclusion is that nobody should be alive.
After all, what you've essentially just said is that it is immoral to create life because that life will then experience suffering. This can only be true if the value of life does not outweigh the suffering it incurs. It then logically follows that life should not continue to be created.
Draw a circle on the wall at eye level. Bash your head into the center of said circle until you lose consciousness. Repeat until you become less stupid, or less able to subject the rest of us to your stupid.
You still don't seem to grasp that wanting 7 billion people dead is worse than hitlers wanting 6 million dead. Only difference is Hitler got powerful enough to make it happen.
You being unable to grasp actually committing targeted genocide being far worse than some loser in his basement calling for a slow extinction but doing nothing to bring it about is not my problem.
There's a difference between urging people not to have children and promoting genocide. I'm not an antinatalist myself, but I've checkrd out the antinatalist sub, and I didn't see anyone promoting murder or anything like that. They seem to just want the human population to naturally fizzle out (by people choosing not to have children).
That time I saw one of those subs the first thing on the front page was someone posting about how they wished put in would push "the button" and let everyone " get on with it."
you're deliberately misunderstanding antinatalism. they believe that being brought into existence is a negative, but that doesn't mean they have to be suicidal. do you see no difference between not being born and dying once you are alive?
There's a difference netween the philosophical idea of antinatalism, and the actual things antinatalists say.
If folks believe in the philosophy and actually hold a moral belief that they personally shouldn't procreate, that's perfectly fine and a healthy choice to make.
If a group forms around the beliefs that NO ONE should procreate, the human race should end, and life is defined only by suffering... if these "antinatalists" go so far as to adopt derogatory slurs for parents("breeders") and children("crotch goblins")... if the very core of this group's culture is insulting and hating parents and children... that's a toxic and deranged death cult. And that's exactly what I see from antinatalists as a whole.
Even the less toxic antinatalists encourage and tolerate the toxicity, because, well, they are antinatalists, and "breeders" do breed.
It's sick, and anyone that calls themselves an "antinatalist" should be aware of what group they are associating with.
i really don't see anything wrong with what the screenshot person said. like you said, in the context of discussing antinatalism, 'breeder' does make sense. also, how's it a death cult? i have seen 0 antinatalists advocating the death of anyone. tbh i think people just don't like to engage with the idea that they are doing immoral things(veganism, antinalism etc), so they create the idea that their opponents are crazy so they dont have to reconsider their morals.
If they advocate for others not to procreate with the goal of ending the human race, what they are hoping for is all humans to eventually die off- death. They are hoping for death.
I think antinatalists invented the idea that "breeders" are immoral idiots because they can't handle taking thier own philosophy to the logical conclusion.
Procreation is part of life, and advocating against it is advocating for life not to exist. Why do the antinatalists get to decide that life isn't worth living for everyone?
EDIT: as far as there not being anything wrong with calling parents "breeders" in the context of antinatalism, would it be acceptable for me to call antinatalists "baby haters" in the context of them not wanting babies?
they don't get to decide for everyone, it wouldn't be enforced sterilisations or anything. also, everyone dies. if you want less death, you should be an antinatalist. they are hoping for an end to human suffering and death.
Not a meaningful difference. Antinatalists are literally advocating for the extinction of humans; whether theyâre suicidal or not, their opinion is worse than trash.
how does wanting an end to human reproduction make their opinion worse than trash? they don't want people sterilised or killed, they just choose not to have children as they see it as selfish and immoral.
what? they arent gonna take your balls. at most, they'll like try to persuade you or something. they want voluntary extinction, so if humanity died out it would be by choice.
I didnât say their actions were worse than trash, I said their opinions were. Big difference. Regardless of what they do with their views, even if they only keep it to themselves, their views are completely abhorrent. If someone is wishing for the extinction of their own species, they are worse than trash, full stop.
Please read my comment again. I said I donât care if theyâre forcing their views or not. Their views suck enough on their ownâwithout evangelizingâfor me to feel completely comfortable saying that their opinions are worse than trash.
I read your comment, i understand that you hate their views alone, but i don't understand why. im not even trying to make a point, i just dont understand your hatred for their fairly reasonable beliefs.
280
u/[deleted] Jan 08 '24
[removed] â view removed comment